^{page 29 note 1} The statement of the owner referred to, to the effect that the terminal was a small cross, seems to be substantiated by the little cross terminating the analogous altar-ornament (see infra) in Burgos Cathedral.

^{page 29 note 2} I was unable to ascertain whether the object had originally been made for the family which sold it, or whether perhaps it was an acquisition, from some religious institution, by one of its members who collected Spanish silverwork. In either case there is a strong presumption that the object was made in Valladolid or in its vicinity.

^{page 29 note 3} It was no. 2817: ‘Sacra gótica de plata dorada. Pertenece al Ilustrísimo Cabildo Catedral de Toledo.’

^{page 29 note 4} There are commas separating single words from each other, particularly in the first three lines; the e of our etÉrni is replaced by the more usual œ; there are ⋄ -shaped dots above some of the letters; remissionem has the second s proper to it; etc.

^{page 30 note 1} Bought, unaccompanied by any history, in Paris, in 1929. At present on loan in the Victoria and Albert Museum.

^{page 30 note 2} I have an impression—though I am by no means certain of it—that the sacra, next referred to, at Granada is similar to this.

^{page 31 note 1} The late Rev. Father Thurston brought to my attention X. Barbier de Montault's long note, in Revue d'Archéologie poitevine, ii, 149 seqq., on ‘Les Cartons d'Autel de l'église de Jaulnay (Vienne)’, which is principally concerned with two printed cards of the eighteenth century, but gives some further details of the history of altar-cards in general.

^{page 31 note 2} Notions d'Arqueologia Sagrada Catalana, by Josep Gudiol i Cunill, Vich, 1902; a second edition, amplified (in part at the expense of some condensation) and to a certain extent revised in the light of fresh material, with 620 illustrations (almost all in half-tone, from photographs), was prepared and brought out by his nephew, Senor J. Gudiol i Ricart, in 1931. The section on altar-cards—‘Sacres’—is on p. 482 seq. of the original edition; and, greatly condensed, on p. 481 of the revised edition.

^{page 32 note 1} Ibid., 483, quoting from vol. ii of the little periodical La Veu del Montserrat. Dunán, F., in ‘La orfebrería Catalana’, in Revista de Archivos, xxxiii (1915), 286Google Scholar, quoting Gudiol, unfortunately gives the date misprinted as ‘1460’.

^{page 32 note 2} Those I cite below, from A. López Ferreiro's Historia de la Santa A.M. Iglesia de Santiago de Compostela, Madrid, v.d., have been brought together by J. Villa-amil y Castro, in his Mobiliario litúrgico de las iglesias gallegas en la edad media, Madrid, 1907, 390, under the heading of ‘Sacra’.

^{page 33 note 1} ‘Cardenal’, here one of seven Canons of a certain dignity in the Chapter of Santiago; not a Prince of the Church.

^{page 33 note 2} Cf. López Ferreiro, op. cit. vii, 138 of the ‘Appendices’, giving section V of Appendix XXXIII.

^{page 33 note 3} Ibid. viii, 163.

^{page 33 note 4} Id. 236.

^{page 33 note 5} Id. 427.

^{page 34 note 1} Thus, in England, ‘By the Canons, temp. King Edgar, it was ordered that a priest should never celebrate Mass without book, but that the Canon [of the Mass] should be before his eyes to see to, if needed, lest he mistake …’; cf. Trans. St. Paul's Ecclesiastical Society, i (1881–5), 165.

^{page 34 note 2} In Andreas Schmid's Der christliche Altar und sein Schmuck, Regensburg, 1871, 355 seq. This excellent work, citing exact references for its statements, presents the most comprehensive account of altar-cards (under the name of Canontafeln, a name seemingly less embracing than our corresponding term ‘altar-cards’) I have as yet found. In addition to the historical summary on p. 355 seq., it gives on p. 429 seq. information concerning the proper forms, the clear type to be used in the printing, the advisability of protecting with varnish or with glass, the framing and the designs of frames, and the care, of altar-cards.

^{page 35 note 1} I have to thank Mr. Hedley Hope-Nicholson for bringing this picture to my attention.

^{page 35 note 2} Cod. bibl. pal. vindob. 2706. It has been nobly published, in a complete series of reproductions, many in colours, of photographs, under the direction of F. Dörnhöffer, at Utrecht, 1907–9; the illumination in question is reproduced, in colours, in pl. 758.

^{page 35 note 3} Cf. Hortulus Anime, Elucidation, by F. Dörnhöffer, Utrecht, 1910, 23 seqq., 30 seqq.

^{page 35 note 4} I am indebted to Mr. Hope-Nicholson for informing me of this and of some of its details; and to our Fellow Mr. Louis C. G. Clarke, Director of the Fitzwilliam Museum, for the remaining details here given.

^{page 36 note 1} Cf. de Farcy, L., La Broderie, Angers, 1890, pl. 65Google Scholar (where the card is reproduced, in photogravure, in something like one-half its natural size) and p. 130 of the text. It should be noted that the accompanying inscription, attributing the object to the beginning of the sixteenth century, presumably has been meant to apply to another object reproduced on the same plate; the altar-card was made between 1545 and 1547. I must thank Mr. Clarke for notifying me of this object.

^{page 36 note 2} Cf. The Fabric Rolls of York Minster, Surtees Society, 1859, 308. Mr. Hope-Nicholson, who brought to my notice the above entry, pointed out also the possibility that the object it refers to may conceivably be the one mentioned in an inventory of soon after 1500 as ‘Una tabula argenti deaurati cum ymagine B.M. enamelyd, pond, ix lb., vij unc. di.’ (cf. ibid. 223); the weight, 115 oz., of this tabula, only a few ounces more than that of the ‘tablet’ of the later inventory, might well have been reduced to 110 oz. during the four to five decades (including a period of great disturbance) which passed between the takings of the two inventories, by chance breakage or through some other cause; if it be the same object which is referred to in both records, it would seem—in the light of its description in the earlier inventory—unlikely that it was of the nature of a sacra.